Are we living in a computer simulation?
- Thread starter alexsok
- Start date
zidane1strife
Banned
Oh, but it's interesting to note that one of many theoretical physicists(is that the right description?), Michio Kaku presents ideas about what could be accomplished with the final theory, mentioning an 'exit' as a possibility. Interesting isn't it? Many are those, physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, who hold that information is at the root of this world, who hold it as the fundamental nature of this world.Chalnoth said:
As for mathematics or physics here:
1=1
1-1=0
0=0
1*1=1
1/1=1
For a book that follows similar, but at first sight seemingly less complete, ideas connecting physical law and information, with more elaborate mathematics, you could read the following(note that it is in my future reading list of books, and as such I've not personally read it yet, just the amazon inside snippet provided.):
nice book
mondoterrifico
Newcomer
Chalnoth said:
Yep, the idealogue filters everything through his/her confirmation bias, and in the process usually obtains some quaint mixture of superstition and <colbert>sciencyness</colbert>, when it suits their arguments.
zidane1strife
Banned
Well, my friend it rests on very interesting grounds to say the least. It rests on the possibility of abstract things being, and their intimate connection with the concrete, on the possibility of the infinite being and its intimate connection with the finite, and on the possibility of the indestructability of information.(In sum nothing comes from nothing.)Chalnoth said:
Taking these things as axiomatic and developing them, seeing their implications, through one's thought experiments, yields fundamental insights into pretty much everything... From the nature of qualia to the nature of time. Yes even obtaining the general systems theory, and unification seems possible through this path.
If there exists any hardware that "runs" the universe (undeniable), everything else is a question of semantics, like it being a simulation if it simulates something else. But does that matter in any way, if the machinery used is the same in any case?
A more interesting question might be: are there other beings who are able to alter our experience of our existence by changing properties of the universe? Or in other words: is there someone behind the buttons, or at least able to press them? Might we possible be able to do that one day? Like, making it possible to travel faster than light, because we really want to?
If you don't answer with a definite "No." to those questions, it all comes back to semantics.
A more interesting question might be: are there other beings who are able to alter our experience of our existence by changing properties of the universe? Or in other words: is there someone behind the buttons, or at least able to press them? Might we possible be able to do that one day? Like, making it possible to travel faster than light, because we really want to?
If you don't answer with a definite "No." to those questions, it all comes back to semantics.
BY definition entropy only exists because the universe is machine that is attempting to do work... Eventually it will run out of energy to do that work unless some intellegience within the universe can restore, recycle, generate or prevent the energy being lost from being lost while doing work.
I think life only exists so that the universe can find a solution to its own eventual death. Intelligent beings are probably the only efficient computing elements it has to find that answer...
Did that make any sense?
I think life only exists so that the universe can find a solution to its own eventual death. Intelligent beings are probably the only efficient computing elements it has to find that answer...
Did that make any sense?
DudeMiester
Regular
On this issue, I argue on the basis of equivalence. We have no way of saying if the universe is a computer simulation or not, but if it is, it doesn't change anything about our state within the universe. In other words, it doesn't matter. If it makes it convienent for you to believe the world is simulated, or is an assumition that assists with some scientific matter, then so be it. It makes no difference one way or another, at least at present.
I suppose in some undetermined future time, we may have the ability to "hack" the universe and "reprogram" parts of it to our needs (e.g. warp drive). Then maybe it would matter, but I have significant doubt. Such a "hack" would probably have an analogue in mathmatics and physics, so equivalence kicks in again and it doesn't matter.
I guess that means, we're wasting our time talking about it too.
I suppose in some undetermined future time, we may have the ability to "hack" the universe and "reprogram" parts of it to our needs (e.g. warp drive). Then maybe it would matter, but I have significant doubt. Such a "hack" would probably have an analogue in mathmatics and physics, so equivalence kicks in again and it doesn't matter.
I guess that means, we're wasting our time talking about it too.
The guestion is not as much who created the simulation, but who got bored, gave up, forgot and left the computer after the first friggin billions of years.
And what happens if he/she/it suddenly remembers he left the simulator on....
And what happens if he/she/it suddenly remembers he left the simulator on....
1. Math might hold the answer to everything, then again it might not who's to say? Us?
2. Philosophy does not equal religion.
3. It is foolish to think there is a purpose to everything.
4. It is foolish to believe everything has to make sense for it to exist.
I have more but I think that is enough for people to think about.
Which is better at solving the problem a paper clip a stapler or glue?
2. Philosophy does not equal religion.
3. It is foolish to think there is a purpose to everything.
4. It is foolish to believe everything has to make sense for it to exist.
I have more but I think that is enough for people to think about.
Which is better at solving the problem a paper clip a stapler or glue?
Last edited by a moderator:
DudeMiester
Regular
afaik, we do have nail guns. Personally, I'd just recycle it into something better.
